Friday, January 21, 2011

The Post: Obama Needs to Push For Marriage Equality

The Washington Post this morning published a persuasive editorial by Kerry Eleveld encouraging the President to consider marriage equality. Eleveld interviewed President Obama as he was preparing to sign the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal into law.

Given that openly gay men and women would soon be fighting and, in some cases, dying for their country, I wondered whether the president thought it was time that those women and men be entitled to full marriage rights.

"Like a lot of people, I'm wrestling with this. My attitudes are evolving on this," Obama responded. "What I know is that, at minimum, a baseline is that there has to be a strong, robust civil union available to all gay and lesbian couples."

His current position on gay marriage - that this is an issue he struggles with as he watches his gay and lesbian friends marry and create loving households - goes beyond his 2008 campaign stance, which was simply to support civil unions. (Earlier in his political career, as a candidate for the Illinois state Senate, Obama supported full marriage rights for same-sex couples.)

But the president is facing new terrain now that some gays in the military will undoubtedly be lawfully wedded to their partners. For example, will the families of those service members have access to the same benefits and support networks that their heterosexual counterparts have? Will their spouses be the first informed if they pay the ultimate sacrifice in the course of defending their country?

There is a serious flaw in the president's position of viewing civil unions as a path to giving same-sex couples equal relationship recognition: The federal government does not recognize civil unions for the purposes of spousal benefits. In fact, no legislation to formalize civil unions exists at the federal level.

That means that advocates of civil unions, Obama included, are suggesting for lesbian and gay couples a status for which the federal government has no definition and no frame of reference within its codes, and one that provides no path to legal recognition.

This is an important point to consider, even as Maryland considers a new civil union bill. Marriage is recognized everywhere, including by the federal government, but civil unions are undefined. Why not just call them "marriages" and be done with it?

It sounds easier than re-writing all legislation that mentioned marriage, to include this new class of... marriage arrangement.

Eleveld explains that the President has said that the country needs to discuss the issue of marriage equality.

I hope that the president is serious about leading that discussion, much the way he did with his landmark Philadelphia speech on race in 2008.

That, too, was considered troubled territory that many of his advisers warned against broaching - yet it became a moment that helped define Obama's character.

With equality legislation stalled in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, one of the most significant advances Obama can make between now and his 2012 reelection campaign is to evolve fully on marriage equality.

The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was a turning point in the marriage discussion. It poses a major challenge and an opportunity for the president.

While he, like many Americans, grapples with the fact that civil unions provide no remedy for gay taxpayers with regard to federal spousal benefits, he has enlisted the most powerful lobby in the nation to work on behalf of gay rights - the U.S. military.

Once repeal is implemented, the military will begin to move toward eradicating the inequalities endured by gay service members.

Indeed, 67 percent of service members told the Pentagon's study group that lifting the ban would have a positive effect or no effect at all on readiness - surely those service members will care that their comrades in arms get equal treatment. I would bet they will insist on it.

I think that when the President says his opinion is "evolving" he really means that he knows he's wrong but he's waiting for the right opinion to become more popular with voters. It's time for him to take the lead on this issue.

Eleveld explains that the President has said that the country needs to discuss the issue of marriage equality.

quoting Kerry Eleveld, the Washington correspondent for the Advocate for the first two years of the Obama administration and the editor of EqualityMatters.org.

I hope that the president is serious about leading that discussion, much the way he did with his landmark Philadelphia speech on race in 2008.

Jim? Kerry? Where have you been? Except for those living in the caves of Afghanistan or in similar situations, we here in the United States have been having a discussion on same-sex "marriage" and in 31 out of 50 States we have decided that while we enjoy, like and even love the gays and lesbians in our lives - whether as close friends of over a quarter of a century (as in my case) or as entertainment (as in the case of the show Modern Family - very funny, btw) - we are not yet ready to toss aside natural marriage as something akin to last week's trash, kicked out to the curb as no longer fashionable.

Then Jim writes,

I think that when the President says his opinion is "evolving" he really means that he knows he's wrong but he's waiting for the right opinion to become more popular with voters. It's time for him to take the lead on this issue.

Thank you Jim for stating it most elegantly, glossing over the truth which is this: President Obama's view is not evolving, he simply lacks the courage of conviction to lead and in so doing has become a follower of political opinion rather than a shaper of it. He wants to get re-elected (not much different than Bush or Clinton).

Repeal of DADT does not strike at the heart of the military; rather it affirms the commitment of the United States to equality and justice for all. Same-sex "marriage" does strike at the very heart of marriage and will finish off what heterosexuals started. Natural marriage affirms the complementarity of men and women, as well as what frequently results from such a union.

Still, in the mad frenzy of radical egalitarianism I have little doubt that the advocates of marriage "equality" will sooner (rather than later) win out. Be careful what you wish for...because you will get it.

Excuse me, Mr. Ryssman ("Same-sex "marriage" does strike at the very heart of marriage and will finish off what heterosexuals started.")

Heterosexuals are doing an exceptional job, all on their own, of finishing off what you call "natural marriage".

Perhaps if you devoted just a smidgeon of effort on your part to save a failing institution, (how about a Constitutional Amendment outlawing divorce?) you could then leave others alone who wish to shape their own families and futures...minus the hysterical and speculative opinions and strictures advocated by the so-called "pro-family" "It's my job to mind your business" fanatics.Madama Butterfly